Fox's Kelly falsely asserted that bill "allow[ing] the president to ... surveil" will expire on Feb. 15
SUMMARY: While discussing the "dogfight under way" over the Protect America Act, Fox News' Megyn Kelly falsely claimed that "this bill," which "allows the president to, among other things, surveil the conversations between American citizens and those suspected of being terrorists overseas" is "set to expire on Friday," February 15. In fact, only revisions to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act made in August 2007 would expire; the government would retain the authority to monitor the communications of suspected terrorists.
On the February 13 edition of Fox News' America's Newsroom, while discussing the congressional debate to reauthorize the Protect America Act (PAA), co-host Megyn Kelly said: "There is a dogfight under way on Capitol Hill right now over this bill that allows the president to, among other things, surveil the conversations between American citizens and those suspected of being terrorists overseas," which, Kelly asserted, is "set to expire on Friday," February 15. In fact, the government's authority to eavesdrop on "the conversations between American citizens and those suspected of being terrorists overseas" long precedes the PAA, which was passed in August 2007.
The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (FISA) codified the government's authority to conduct electronic surveillance to collect foreign intelligence information, establishing the conditions under which it could do so, including that the government obtain a court order in most circumstances if the communications were intercepted in the United States or acquired by intentionally targeting the communications of a particular, known U.S. person who is in the United States. What is set to expire are the PAA's revisions to FISA, which, among other things, expanded the government's authority to eavesdrop on Americans' domestic-to-foreign communications without a warrant. According to the PAA's "transition procedures," if those revisions are allowed to expire on February 15, all new authorizations for surveillance would be governed by the FISA statute as it existed prior to the PAA revisions, while all current authorizations would remain in effect until their scheduled expiration date.
Media Matters for America has documented numerous instances of media falsely reporting that the government's ability to eavesdrop on the communications of suspected terrorists would expire if the PAA were not extended.
From the 9 a.m. ET hour of the February 13 edition of Fox News' America's Newsroom:
KELLY: That's a live shot of the Oval Office, folks, and that is the place from which the president will be making his remarks this morning. We are told that he will be commenting on the Protect America Act.
There is a dogfight under way on Capitol Hill right now over this bill that allows the president to, among other things, surveil the conversations between American citizens and those suspected to be terrorists overseas.
This bill has a bunch of controversial provisions in it, and it's set to expire on Friday. The Senate and the House warring over what will be and what will not be in the law, and the president will address that matter in just moments. We're going to carry it for you live.
I tend to look at the whole Privacy vs Security battle in this way: sometimes the items we use to protect our privacy are used by the bad guys to shield their own activities. If I plant a bunch of tall hedges to block out the view of my home from nosy neighbors, I may one day find those same hedges hide thieves who want to break into my house. I have a choice- sacrifice a little (not all) of my privacy to ensure that I don't completely sacrifice my security. We sometime have to trim away a little (again, not all) of the hedge to make sure there are no bad guys hiding in there.
Nobody likes the idea of the government having access to EVERYTHING, but I like the idea of another 9/11 even less. You can't expect to have total privacy and total security at the same time. If the terrorist do strike again, there will be those screaming that the government didn't do enough to prevent the attack.
Your post assumes that the only way to battle terrorism is to give up freedoms. There are other ways, you know.
I still agree that if you give up your freedom for security, you deserve neither - and by the way it looks (and how we're really not as secure as the government would like you to believe), you'll enjoy neither freedom nor security.
Kenny,
You do know that under current FISA law it is possible to get a warrant 72 hours after the phone was tapped, correct?
What is so burdensome about getting a warrant AFTER the fact? If you have actionable intelligence and its an emergency, listen to the call. If your intelligence is at all reasonable, the warrant will be granted afterwards even if there was a mistake. Why sacrifice when you don't have to?
Your nosy neighbors = the president of the USA.
The thieves = the terrorists
Your house = the USA
Your hedge = The US Constitution
Your nosy neighbors = the Bush Administration
And for argument's sake, let's assume a couple more:
Your spouse = the FISA court
Your nosy neighbors' gardener = the telephone industry
Now, let's see if I can come up with a more accurate analogy:
Your nosy neighbors decide they don't like your hedges because they can't see you and want to make sure that YOU are not the thieves that broke into their house. You come home and find the nosy neighbors' gardener cleaning up from just having trimmed your hedge while you are away. You confront the gardener, but he simply says he was told by your nosy neighbors to trim the hedge and that it's perfectly legal. You confront your neighbors, but they insist they have the authority to do so without your permission or the permission of your spouse because you are a suspect in the burglary of their home for reasons unknown to you.
I think you'd be pretty unhappy with your nosy neighbors.
It's that simple.
I hate to believe that this works on people. Didn't President Bush just gut education in his new Budget? Maybe that wasn't such a good thing.
FISA is still in effect, and allows 72 hour retroactive authorization for surveillance. Why ask for more? Bush himself publically said that his administration never spied on people without a warrant, but he was lying. He now resists investigations into his illegal wiretapping. Tom Ridge, the former head of Homeland Security, has confirmed that the White House told him several times to raise the threat level when there was no information from ANY intelligence agency providing a reason for doing so.
The government already has the authority to spy on terrorists. Reporting otherwise is lying.